On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 13:57:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
The DIP review process is not intended for community approval or rejection of DIPs. It's not a democratic voting process.

The community needs to unite and fix this. It is an ineffectual process that leads to worse results for the language and further poisons the relationship between us.

A small voting review committee solves these problems.
  • Re: DIP1028 - Rationale... Joseph Rushton Wakeling via Digitalmars-d-announce
    • Re: DIP1028 - Rati... rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
      • Re: DIP1028 - ... matheus via Digitalmars-d-announce
        • Re: DIP102... Johannes Loher via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: DI... matheus via Digitalmars-d-announce
        • Re: DIP102... Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: DI... bachmeier via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • R... Bruce Carneal via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • R... Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: DI... Bruce Carneal via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: DI... Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
      • Re: DIP1028 - ... Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-announce
        • Re: DIP102... Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: DI... H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: DI... Q. Schroll via Digitalmars-d-announce
        • Re: DIP102... rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
          • Re: DI... Atila Neves via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • R... rikki cattermole via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • R... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • R... Bruce Carneal via Digitalmars-d-announce
            • R... Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce

Reply via email to